Club good

Last updated
A noncongested toll road is an example of a club good. It is possible to exclude someone from using it by simply denying them access but it is not a rival good since one person's use of the road does not reduce its usefulness to others. M4 Tolls for second Severn crossing - geograph.org.uk - 573113.jpg
A noncongested toll road is an example of a club good. It is possible to exclude someone from using it by simply denying them access but it is not a rival good since one person's use of the road does not reduce its usefulness to others.

Club goods (also artificially scarce goods, toll goods, collective goods or Quasi-public goods) are a type of good in economics, [1] sometimes classified as a subtype of public goods that are excludable but non-rivalrous, at least until reaching a point where congestion occurs. Often these goods exhibit high excludability, but at the same time low rivalry in consumption. Thus, club goods have essentially zero marginal costs and are generally provided by what is commonly known as natural monopolies. [2] Furthermore, club goods have artificial scarcity. Club theory is the area of economics that studies these goods. [3] One of the most famous provisions was published by Buchanan in 1965 "An Economic Theory of Clubs," in which he addresses the question of how the size of the group influences the voluntary provision of a public good and more fundamentally provides a theoretical structure of communal or collective ownership-consumption arrangements. [4]

Contents

Definition matrix

Excludable Non-excludable
Rivalrous Private goods
eg. food, clothing, parking spaces 		Common-pool resources
eg. fish stocks, timber
Non-rivalrous Club goods
eg. cinemas, software, private parks		 Public goods
eg. free-to-air television, air, national defense

Where club goods are found

Examples of club goods include cinemas, cable television, software as a service, access to copyrighted works, and the services provided by social or religious clubs to their members. The EU is also treated as a club good, since the services it provides can be excluded from non-EU member states, but several services are nonrival in consumption. These include the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital within the Internal Market, and participation in a common currency: for example, adding extra countries to the Schengen Area would not make it more difficult for citizens of current EU members to move between countries. [5]

Public goods with benefits restricted to a specific group may be considered club goods. For example, expenditures that benefit all of the children in a household but not the adults. The existence of club goods for children may offset the effects of sibling competition for private investments in larger families. While a large number of children in a family would usually reduce private investment ratios per child, due to competition for resources, the effects of a larger family on club goods are not as straightforward. As a result of economies of scale, investment ratios in club goods may eventually increase, since the relative price decreases when, in this example, a larger family consumes a club good. They are called child-specific goods and can also be referred to as club goods. [6]

Specific examples for private club goods are memberships in gyms, golf clubs, or swimming pools. Both organisations generate additional fees per use. For example, a person may not use a swimming pool very regularly. Therefore, instead of having a private pool, you become member of a club pool. By charging membership fees, every club member pays for the pool, making it a common property resource, but still excludable, since only members are allowed to use it. Hence, the service is excludable, but it is nonetheless nonrival in consumption, at least until a certain level of congestion is reached. The idea is that individual consumption and payment is low, but aggregate consumption enables economies of scale and drives down unit production costs. [7]

In Israel

Analyzing Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, economist Eli Berman writes: [8]

Religious prohibitions can be understood as an extreme tax on secular activity outside the club which substitutes for charitable activity within the club. A religious community lacking tax authority or unable to sufficiently subsidize charitable activity may choose prohibitions to increase this activity among members. Sabbath observance and dietary restrictions, for instance, can be rationalized with that approach. In this context the increased stringency of religious practice is an efficient communal response to rising real wages and to increased external subsidies.

Club theory

James M. Buchanan developed club theory (the study of club goods in economics) in his 1965 paper, "An Economic Theory of Clubs". He found that in neo-classical economic theory and theoretical welfare economics is exclusively about private property and all goods and services are privately consumed or utilized. Just over the last two decades before his provision in 1965, scholars started to extend the theoretical framework and communal or collective ownership-consumption arrangements were considered as well.

Paul A. Samuelson made an important provision in this regard, making a sharp conceptual distinction between goods that are purely private and goods that are purely public. While it extended the previously existing theoretical framework, Buchanan found that there was still a missing link that would cover the whole spectrum of ownership consumption possibilities. This gap contained goods that were excludable, shared by more people than typically share a private good, but fewer people than typically share a public good. The whole spectrum would cover purely private activities on one side and purely public or collectivized activities on the other side. Therefore, according to Buchanan, a theory of clubs needed to be added to the field. [9]

The goal of his theory was to address the question of determining the "size of the most desirable cost and consumption sharing arrangement". [10]

The model was based on the assumptions that individuals have similar preferences for both private and public goods, the size of the club good and equal sharing of costs. The economic theory of clubs further tries to answer the undersupply equilibrium of a public good provision. Provision of club goods may sometimes pose an alternative to public good provisions by the federal or central government. An issue of club theory is that it may not result in equal and democratic distribution of the good eventually due to its excludability characteristic. James M. Buchanan was primarily interested in voluntary clubs. In these cases club good theory can critically assess how to achieve an optimal number of members of a club as well as the maximum utility for club members. [11]

Examples of private goods that Buchanan offered to illustrate this concept were hair cuts and shoes. Two people can't wear the same exact pair of shoes at the same time, but two or more people can take turns wearing them. As the number of people sharing the same pair of shoes increases, the amount of utility each person derives from the shoes diminishes. For the case of service, like a haircut, the same logic applies. Sharing a haircut means, one-half haircut per month is consumed, or half a physical unit of service. Therefore, the utility for the person deriving from the service declines. [12]

Using the example of a swimming pool facility, James M. Buchanan states that: [13]

As more persons are allowed to share in the enjoyment of the facility, of given size, the benefit evaluation that the individual places on the good will, after some point, decline. There may, of course, be both an increasing and a constant range of the total benefit function, but at some point, congestion will set in, and his evaluation of the good will fall.

But each new member (or co-owner) helps reduce the cost of the club good, so there will be some optimal size of the good that maximizes the benefit for its members.

In the 90s Richard Cornes and Todd Sandler came up with three conditions to determine the optimal club size, which were based at equating costs and benefits at the margin. Firstly, the provision condition which requires determination of the benefits to members from reducing congestion costs and set them in comparison to the cost of capacity. Secondly a utilisation condition, which requires an efficient use of the capacity. Here the user fees equate the members marginal benefit from consumption and the congestion costs the member's participation imposes on others. If the fee is set too low, the club's capacity will be overused, if the fee is too high the capacity will be underutilized. Hence, the club good must be priced in a way that reflects members preferences for crowding.

The third condition is that new members are added to the club, until the marginal benefit from additional membership is equal to the marginal congestion costs. [14]

Because of the three conditions, there is usually a two-part pricing of club goods. One is the fixed up-front membership fees and the other is the per unit charge to achieve an optimal utilisation. In the case of a pure public good, like political lobbying a two-part pricing is not feasible, but a club can provide selective incentives, also called Member-only privileges, like subscribing to the club's magazine or journal. [15] Since clubs compete for members, as long as clubs can be closed freely and members are free to exit, prices for clubs will be in line with costs. The free exit option prevents clubs from charging prices that are too high, but incentivizes free-riding. Members understate their benefits, reduce their effort they supply towards achieving the club's collective goals and take advantage of other club members. [16]

The theory of clubs has been intensively applied to the realm of international alliances. Olson and Zeckhauser (1967) published a cost-sharing analysis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In particular they identify the conditions under which it would be in the interest of the club members to increase the size of NATO. According to them every members pay contribution fees, based on their specific marginal values. Therefore, costs shares are computed based on the club's total costs and group size. They point out that the United States is by far the largest contributor to NATO and by that to the collective goal of the institution. The question raised is whether the differences in membership contribution are reasonable given each country's valuation of the provided good by the alliance. Otherwise, the distribution of cost shares is unjust and several member states are free riding. [17]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Club Theory: A Contemporary Economic Review. Public Choice: Public Goods eJournal. Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Accessed 5 February 2020.
  2. ↑ Jodi Beggs (2017) https://www.thoughtco.com/excludability-and-rivalry-in-consumption-1147876
  3. ↑ Suzanne Scotchmer, 2008. "clubs," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics , 2nd Edition. Abstract.
  4. ↑ James M. Buchanan (1965): "An Economic Theory of Clubs", in Economica, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 125, pp. 1–14.
  5. ↑ Ahrens, Joachim, Hoen, Herman W. And Ohr, Renate (2005): "Deepening Integration in an Enlarged EU: A Club-Theoretical Perspective", in: European Integration, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 417–439.
  6. ↑ Jones, Kelly M. (2014). "Growing up Together: Cohort Composition and Child Investment". Demography. 51 (1): 229–255. doi: 10.1007/s13524-013-0237-x . PMID   24072608.
  7. ↑ Atanu Dey (2017) (https://deeshaa.org/2017/02/08/private-goods-club-goods-and-public-goods/).
  8. ↑ Berman, Eli (2000). "Sect, Subsidy, and Sacrifice: An Economist's View of Ultra-Orthodox Jews" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 115 (3): 905–953. doi:10.1162/003355300554944.
  9. ↑ Marciano, Alain (2021). "Retrospectives: James Buchanan: Clubs and Alternative Welfare Economics". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 35 (3): 243–256. doi: 10.1257/jep.35.3.243 . ISSN   0895-3309.
  10. ↑ James M. Buchanan 1965. "An Economic Theory of Clubs," Economica, 32(125), N.S., pp. 1-14. Archived 2013-10-22 at the Wayback Machine Reprinted in James M. Buchanan (2001). Externalities and Public Expenditure Theory, The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, Volume 15, pp. 193-209 (Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund); and, Robert E. Kuenne, ed. (2000). Readings in Social Welfare, pp. 73-85.
  11. ↑ Patrick McNutt (1999) (https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/D405/Study%20Material/Mcnutt%20-%20Public%20goods%20and%20club%20goods%20-%201999.pdf).
  12. ↑ James M. Buchanan (1965): "An Economic Theory of Clubs", in Economica, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 125, pp. 1-14.
  13. ↑ James M. Buchanan (1965): "An Economic Theory of Clubs", in Economica, New Series, Vol. 32, No. 125, pp. 1-14.
  14. ↑ Richard Cornes, Todd Sandler (1996) "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Club Goods", in Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., pp. 347-356.
  15. ↑ Mancur Olson (1989) Collective Action. In: Eatwell J., Milgate M., Newman P. (eds) The Invisible Hand. The New Palgrave. Palgrave Macmillan, London, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20313-0_5.
  16. ↑ Todd Sandler (2015) "Collective Action: fifty years later", in Springer Link, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-015-0252-0.
  17. ↑ Mancur Olson, Richard Zeckhauser (1966) "An Economic Theory of Alliances", in Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 48, pp. 266-279.

Related Research Articles

Public choice, or public choice theory, is "the use of economic tools to deal with traditional problems of political science." Its content includes the study of political behavior. In political science, it is the subset of positive political theory that studies self-interested agents and their interactions, which can be represented in a number of ways—using standard constrained utility maximization, game theory, or decision theory. It is the origin and intellectual foundation of contemporary work in political economy.

In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods and common pool resources do not pay for them or under-pay. Examples of such goods are public roads or public libraries or services or other goods of a communal nature. Free riders are a problem for common pool resources because they may overuse it by not paying for the good. Consequently, the common pool resource may be under-produced, overused, or degraded. Additionally, it has been shown that despite evidence that people tend to be cooperative by nature, the presence of free-riders causes cooperation to deteriorate, perpetuating the free-rider problem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James M. Buchanan</span> American economist (1919–2013)

James McGill Buchanan Jr. was an American economist known for his work on public choice theory originally outlined in his most famous work, The Calculus of Consent, co-authored with Gordon Tullock in 1962. He continued to develop the theory, eventually receiving the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1986. Buchanan's work initiated research on how politicians' and bureaucrats' self-interest, utility maximization, and other non-wealth-maximizing considerations affect their decision-making. He was a member of the Board of Advisors of The Independent Institute as well as of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a member of the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) and MPS president from 1984 to 1986, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute, and professor at George Mason University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Externality</span> In economics, an imposed cost or benefit

In economics, an externality or external cost is an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's activity. Externalities can be considered as unpriced components that are involved in either consumer or producer market transactions. Air pollution from motor vehicles is one example. The cost of air pollution to society is not paid by either the producers or users of motorized transport to the rest of society. Water pollution from mills and factories is another example. All (water) consumers are made worse off by pollution but are not compensated by the market for this damage. A positive externality is when an individual's consumption in a market increases the well-being of others, but the individual does not charge the third party for the benefit. The third party is essentially getting a free product. An example of this might be the apartment above a bakery receiving some free heat in winter. The people who live in the apartment do not compensate the bakery for this benefit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public good (economics)</span> Good that is non-excludable and non-rival

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Use by one person neither prevents access by other people, nor does it reduce availability to others. Therefore, the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person. This is in contrast to a common good, such as wild fish stocks in the ocean, which is non-excludable but rivalrous to a certain degree. If too many fish were harvested, the stocks would deplete, limiting the access of fish for others. A public good must be valuable to more than one user, otherwise, its simultaneous availability to more than one person would be economically irrelevant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective action</span> Action taken together by a group of people to further a common objective

Collective action refers to action taken together by a group of people whose goal is to enhance their condition and achieve a common objective. It is a term that has formulations and theories in many areas of the social sciences including psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science and economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public finance</span> Study of the role of government within the economy

Public finance is the study of the role of the government in the economy. It is the branch of economics that assesses the government revenue and government expenditure of the public authorities and the adjustment of one or the other to achieve desirable effects and avoid undesirable ones. The purview of public finance is considered to be threefold, consisting of governmental effects on:

  1. The efficient allocation of available resources;
  2. The distribution of income among citizens; and
  3. The stability of the economy.

In philosophy, economics, and political science, the common good is either what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service. The concept of the common good differs significantly among philosophical doctrines. Early conceptions of the common good were set out by Ancient Greek philosophers, including Aristotle and Plato. One understanding of the common good rooted in Aristotle's philosophy remains in common usage today, referring to what one contemporary scholar calls the "good proper to, and attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Goods</span> Tangible or intangible things that satisfy human wants and can be transferred

In economics, goods are items that satisfy human wants and provide utility, for example, to a consumer making a purchase of a satisfying product. A common distinction is made between goods which are transferable, and services, which are not transferable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rivalry (economics)</span> Property of economic goods

In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. A good is considered non-rivalrous or non-rival if, for any level of production, the cost of providing it to a marginal (additional) individual is zero. A good is "anti-rivalrous" and "inclusive" if each person benefits more when other people consume it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mancur Olson</span> American economist and political scientist (1932–1998)

Mancur Lloyd Olson Jr. was an American economist and political scientist who taught at the University of Maryland, College Park. His most influential contributions were to new institutional economics, and focused on the role played by private property, taxation, public goods, collective action, and contract rights in economic development.

In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR) is a type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system, whose size or characteristics makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use. Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource, which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or nurtured in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Excludability</span> Degree to which consumption of a good can be restricted

Excludability is the degree to which a good, service or resource can be limited to only paying customers, or conversely, the degree to which a supplier, producer or other managing body can prevent consumption of a good. In economics, a good, service or resource is broadly assigned two fundamental characteristics; a degree of excludability and a degree of rivalry.

"The Lighthouse in Economics" is a 1974 academic paper written by British economist Ronald H. Coase, the 1991 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.

The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups is a book by Mancur Olson Jr. published in 1965. It develops a theory of political science and economics of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs. Its central argument is that concentrated minor interests will be overrepresented and diffuse majority interests trumped, due to a free-rider problem that is stronger when a group becomes larger.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common good (economics)</span>

Common goods are defined in economics as goods that are rivalrous and non-excludable. Thus, they constitute one of the four main types based on the criteria:

Property rights are constructs in economics for determining how a resource or economic good is used and owned, which have developed over ancient and modern history, from Abrahamic law to Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Resources can be owned by individuals, associations, collectives, or governments.

Public economics(or economics of the public sector) is the study of government policy through the lens of economic efficiency and equity. Public economics builds on the theory of welfare economics and is ultimately used as a tool to improve social welfare. Welfare can be defined in terms of well-being, prosperity, and overall state of being.

The collective action theory was first published by Mancur Olson in 1965. Olson argues that any group of individuals attempting to provide a public good has difficulty doing so efficiently. On the one hand individuals have incentives to "free-ride" on the efforts of others in certain groups and on the other hand the size of a group is of high importance and difficult to optimally determine.

The benefit principle is a concept in the theory of taxation from public finance. It bases taxes to pay for public-goods expenditures on a politically-revealed willingness to pay for benefits received. The principle is sometimes likened to the function of prices in allocating private goods. In its use for assessing the efficiency of taxes and appraising fiscal policy, the benefit approach was initially developed by Knut Wicksell (1896) and Erik Lindahl (1919), two economists of the Stockholm School. Wicksell's near-unanimity formulation of the principle was premised on a just income distribution. The approach was extended in the work of Paul Samuelson, Richard Musgrave, and others. It has also been applied to such subjects as tax progressivity, corporation taxes, and taxes on property or wealth. The unanimity-rule aspect of Wicksell's approach in linking taxes and expenditures is cited as a point of departure for the study of constitutional economics in the work of James Buchanan.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.